Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Call for "OSPF Stub Neighbors"

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Mon, 01 February 2016 23:21 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA5E01B3896 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Feb 2016 15:21:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 83DWodMXfiVL for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Feb 2016 15:21:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A88D1B3894 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Feb 2016 15:21:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3712; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1454368898; x=1455578498; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=gUIESyOqcHqMDgV7uH41kYRsim0H3z9ZsfWvMtGjnFM=; b=Cp+ni4OCaYkpWhGN63Jph0oqZFWkT8HNmV9UUaqjQyEPTcqT3EqFO+Bp Mnu1FqIVwiJ7czwEGvS1mpWfCuCB73WNVwlrpBwfOuhXuI8a0uLjgmH0j LdiEGTkFz99PKaZ6/f69ID/nM62Wfd3kQY/ufy8mEbDXqAdkQts8WKwSC I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0D/AQBo569W/5BdJa1egzpSbQaIU7FaA?= =?us-ascii?q?Q2BZBgKhW0CHIEgOBQBAQEBAQEBgQqEQQEBAQMBAQEBGgYROhALAgEIGAICJgI?= =?us-ascii?q?CAiULFRACBAESG4d4CA6vFY5zAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEWe4lLhEiCa?= =?us-ascii?q?oE6BZZvAYVGiASBW4RCiFOKbINRAR4BAUKDbGqIb3wBAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,382,1449532800"; d="scan'208";a="69253123"
Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Feb 2016 23:21:38 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-004.cisco.com (xch-rtp-004.cisco.com [64.101.220.144]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u11NLbCI032730 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <ospf@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Feb 2016 23:21:38 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-004.cisco.com (64.101.220.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 1 Feb 2016 18:21:36 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Mon, 1 Feb 2016 18:21:37 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "Anton Smirnov (asmirnov)" <asmirnov@cisco.com>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] WG Adoption Call for "OSPF Stub Neighbors"
Thread-Index: AQHRXGP2IACKhU9aokSCi/p6itPWXp8X1ccA
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 23:21:36 +0000
Message-ID: <D2D5513D.4B5F3%acee@cisco.com>
References: <D2CD0B6B.4ADAA%acee@cisco.com> <56AE6B17.1010708@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <56AE6B17.1010708@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.205]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <D7EB9C636E369D4A825FC5C58238F74C@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/cx8cseVMrk4EvbIO2yF6wpZ1QFY>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] WG Adoption Call for "OSPF Stub Neighbors"
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 23:21:40 -0000

Thanks Anton - I agree with that this enhancement should support P2MP as
well. Note that the disclosed IPR abstracts the LSA scoping to a stub-site
specific database so P2MP and other use cases, e.g. parallel links to the
same site, can be accommodated.

http://www.google.com/patents/US20140010117

Acee 

On 1/31/16, 3:14 PM, "Anton Smirnov (asmirnov)" <asmirnov@cisco.com> wrote:

>    Hello,
>    Hub-and-Spoke topology is a known topology where OSPF traditionally
>performed poorly and in my opinion work in this area is very important.
>    On the other hand, I have number of concerns regarding usability of
>approach chosen in this draft and I think in its current state the draft
>is not ready for WG adoption.
>    I have big concerns regarding implementation simplicity and solution
>applicability (i.e. hub-and-spoke networks where proposed solution
>doesn't work). But first of all I want to make a comment on the text as
>it is.
>    Some hub-and-spoke topologies are point-to-multipoint networks. 10
>years ago it was a fraction of all hub-and-spoke WAN, nowadays it is a
>majority. Draft doesn't consider multipoint operations (at least it
>doesn't have word 'multipoint' in it). But multipoint has very big
>implications on having multiple spoofed Router LSAs and their filtering
>- since all stub neighbors are on the same interface, one can't use
>per-interface filtering (which is tightly related to per-interface
>flooding). Spoofed Router LSA will have a new type of flooding behavior
>- per-neighbor. This is doable but it is not specified anywhere and is
>not coded by any implementation I am aware of (i.e. existing filtering
>mechanisms are between different interfaces, not between neighbors on
>the same multipoint interface).
>    So the draft needs to define new LSA flooding scope - per-neighbor
>flooding scope, much like interface-scope flooding had to be devised for
>Opaque LSAs.
>    This is not all for implementation complexity not covered in the
>draft but it will be a good start.
>
>Anton
>
>
>On 01/26/2016 05:39 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>> This draft was has gone through some refinements after being presented
>>in
>> Hawaii and in Yokohama there was some support of this protocol
>>extension.
>> Here is a URL for you convenience.
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-raza-ospf-stub-neighbor/
>>
>> Please indicate your support (or concerns) for adopting this as a WG
>> Document. The WG Adoption call will end in 2 weeks.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSPF mailing list
>> OSPF@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
>>